Given that we are looking at fat loss mainly, my actual experience with ketogenic diets (when Lyle's book first came out) kicked ass. I dumped a lot of blubber and, as Ben suggested, my lifts stayed solid or improved...there was a point where that changed, but that was 30# after I started. Plus, it's actualy fast enough (if you are one of those who can do it) that it is quite fun. This is one of Lyle's main points of both his 'crash' diets and keto diet (his crash diets tend to be keto, actualy, he just doesn't mention it as much). The fat comes off quickly, so you appreciate that what you are doing is working, so you are more willing to keep doing it.

He doesn't mention that his crash diets, explicitly Rapid Fat Loss being a PSMF because ketosis doesn't matter as far as fat loss is concerned.

For people who have a lot of weight to lose (men well over 15% bf would fit this group), low carb diets tend to work great, but it's not because they're in ketosis. Their hormone profiles are usually good (insulin is usually screwy though) and the body knows it's not starving.

I've made points in the past that I think a lot of people would do way better with fewer carbs in their diets, as in well under 100 grams. And I stand by that as most people dont' do anything throughout the day except get up, go to work, come home, watch tv and go to sleep. How glycogen demanding is that?

They pretty much just need to hit their protein requirement and EFA's (the premise of RFL from what I understand). After that, there's not a lot of caloric wiggle room in terms of carbs and fats.

__________________

Quote:

And if you don't think kettleball squat cleans are difficult, I say, step up to the med-ball

They pretty much just need to hit their protein requirement and EFA's (the premise of RFL from what I understand). After that, there's not a lot of caloric wiggle room in terms of carbs and fats.

Exactly, it's not rocket science after all. None of this dividing the plate in thirds or such nonsense. Just plunk down the right size chunk of protein smack dab in the middle of the plate and eat that first to trigger some satiety. Then eat the veggies or salad you dribbled around the protein. Then if you still feel like you're starving, have seconds on the veggies, or have a small chunk of fat or a piece of fruit. Bang! You're done! Go get a life so you'll be too busy to think about eating for 5 or 6 hours.

It's easier to just go "low" carb for cycles than try and calculate magic "zones"....as most people if given the chance will always greatly underestimate what they are taking in....plus it's also easier to say just not eat any bread, then 1/3 a bagel.

Mike OD- that's what I do now- drop everything (bread/rice/fruit) except a little dairy and "green" carbs- it's tough to eat at a level where I'm not losing fat if it's there to lose. For maintenace add the fruit back in and everything is good. Abstinence is easier than other forms of self control (for me!).

I may be wrong but I doubt that Brandon is an Inuit or that he has access to rancid whale or seal blubber or any other traditional Inuit foods therefore he'd need supplements.

I have seen no evidence that the Inuit have any special adaptations to low carb eating that are peculiar to them. I've also seen no evidence that rancid whale and seal blubber and other Inuit foods provide essential nutrients that are not available in what is commonly sold at the grocery store.

And yet the review article you cite states that supplements are required on a ketogenic diet...... so which of you is wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Fury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl Shaw

Anecdotal evidence is worse than useless. Where are the studies showing that athletic performance is improved or at the very least not impaired in some way by a ketogenic diet?

No, anecdotal evidence is what we refer to as a case study. It is useful in suggesting further research. NIH is decidedly not very low carb friendly, so the studies that need doing have not been done and are unlikely to be funded soon.

No studies? Strange...... I seem to recall posting a link to some studies on fat adaptation and ketogenic diets here. If those links aren't working for you I suggest you buy a copy of Clinical Sports Nutrition (3rd edition) where you will find at the end of Chapter 15: Nutritional Strategies To Enhance Fat Oxidation five pages of references citing over 100 studies dealing with the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Fury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl Shaw

I guess you're unaware of the longevity of the Japanese on their traditional high carb diet or the low rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and diet related cancers throughout Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Burma and...... well the whole of South-East Asia really despite their traditional high carb diet?

These areas traditionally consumed considerably less total calories than Americans. Globalizing their results to give Americans a green light to consume excess carbohydrates has resulted in our current epidemic of obesity and Type II diabetes.

Americans did not become the fattest people on Earth by eating too many carbs they got that way by too much of everything.

And yet the review article you cite states that supplements are required on a ketogenic diet...... so which of you is wrong?

Neither. We are referring to different metabolic states.

Phinney's 1983 cyclist study used sodium/potassium supplementation while the cyclists were undergoing keto-adaptation and continuing to train hard.

The Inuit require no special supplementation since they are already keto-adapted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl Shaw

No studies?

I did not say "no studies", I said the studies that "need" to be done. i.e. studies in fully keto-adapted individuals. If you are so inclined, please tell me how many of your studies were conducted on individuals who were fully keto-adapted for greater than 4 weeks? Studying non keto-adapted people after tossing them onto a ketogenic diet and then stating they had performance deficits is just a waste of research dollars. Of course they did. That's like saying, "I put diesel in my gasoline engine and it ran terrible." and then concluding that diesel is lousy fuel.

I did not say "no studies", I said the studies that "need" to be done. i.e. studies in fully keto-adapted individuals. If you are so inclined, please tell me how many of your studies were conducted on individuals who were fully keto-adapted for greater than 4 weeks? Studying non keto-adapted people after tossing them onto a ketogenic diet and then stating they had performance deficits is just a waste of research dollars. Of course they did. That's like saying, "I put diesel in my gasoline engine and it ran terrible." and then concluding that diesel is lousy fuel.

This is so true.

For any moderate, low or very low/no carb diet the studies ONLY do it for like 2-3 weeks.

I'm always like WTF? This doesn't give me any useful information AT ALL. Your study is a piece of crap.

Americans did not become the fattest people on Earth by eating too many carbs they got that way by too much of everything.

This is factually untrue. The absolute amount of protein and fat has barely budged over the years (fat went up a bit for men, down for women, 50 kcal difference either way). The increased caloric intake has been of carbohydrates, and particularly of the processed sort (we've also seen a rather profound switch from sources of sat fat - red meat and whole milk - to PUFAs from vegetable oils).

And as I say every fraking time we jump all over someone's simple question with this silly debate, the anthropological evidence is that humans do just fine with varying macronutrient ratios, just not with crap. Which is what Ben said quite rightly (avoid grains and vegetable oils) before this descended into glycogen reloading and fat adaptation, and all that nonsense.

For the endurance switch, to maintain weight loss, LC/low cal with refeeds (normal calories, higher carb) tends to work best, with refeed timing depending on the %BF (longer intervals the higher the %BF), and where carb-ups should be timed for the peri-exercise period (just pre and w/in 45 minutes post) unless you are glycogen depleted (which you shouldn't strive for if you are doing endurance training) in which case they can go somewhat longer.

For best results, you should not switch 100% of your training for total distance events -- sprinting and intervals should be a strong focus as well. And definitely keep up with the weight training, at least for strength maintenance.

Americans did not become the fattest people on Earth by eating too many carbs they got that way by too much of everything.

While calories did increase.....% fat/protein went down while % carb increased....so Yes, they did become fatter because of excess carb/cal consumption....too bad you can't blame red meat for this one.